Constitutional Republic vs. Anarchy. Do you really know what you want?
Websters Dictionary
Anarchy: lawlessness; lack of government in a country; confusion.
Constitution: structure; composition; health; character, disposition; principles on which country, state is governed.
Republic: country without monarch in which supremacy of people or their elected representatives is formally acknowledged.
Anarchy is lawlessness and confusion, pretty much what is going on now. Right? Any disagreement so far?
A Constitutional Republic calls for character and principles, acquired and demonstrated in action by the people and their representatives.
Please remember: words have power. What you say and what you write can be used against you, as well as for you.
Do you flush your toilet? Wash your clothes? Use electricity, get mail, drive on a road, walk on a sidewalk, use the public library? Then you use government services.
Have you ever called the cops, or the fire department, or an ambulance?
It is easy to talk about anarchy, but government of the people, and for the people has to be run by the people. This is where WE the People have failed. We have not done our duty. We allowed the hypocrisy and greed to happen. We allowed it. Now you say , who needs any laws? Not forcing our government to follow the constitution, which is the law, is what has brought us to the situation we are in.
The reason I am so concerned about this trend towards anarchy, is that most of you don't seem to know what it really means. When you say you are for anarchy, you are saying you want to overthrow the current government. This makes the current government very nervous, and governments often tend to overreact. Citizens threatening to overthrow governments call themselves patriots, but the government calls them treasonous traitors, and often arrest/kidnap the traitors and rendition them to really interesting countries, where they make really wonderful new friends who torture, rape and sometimes murder the citizens. We know this has happened to at least two American citizens so far. Again: that we know of. Of course, the FBI says 50,000 American adults disappear each year, so who knows.
Some of us support trying to restore the constitutional republic. Anarchy has brought us to the state we are in. Please help us. But if you choose not to, think about the MIAC report. The people wanting to overthrow our government (what little is left of it) and institute a world government are going to need excuses to throw people in the camps. You are giving it to them on a silver platter. If neither of those are good enough reasons to consider your actions, think about Dr. Paul. He has dedicated his life to this crusade, if he is now accused of being the leader of a horde of anarchists, what chance do we stand of getting him elected in 2012.
Too many of our people have sacrificed so much to give us this oppotunity at freedom and liberty. Perhaps you are willing to let the flag and constitution go without a whimper. Not me. I do not deserve the honor to stand by Dr. Paul, I am a simple and humble individual, but stand with him I will.
You can always get change, but is it going to be the change you really want? Anarchy only lasts until the strongest individual or group decides what they want to do.
"Anarchy only lasts until
"Anarchy only lasts until the strongest individual or group decides what they want to do."
Empirically this does not hold. Look at the oft cited by anarchists example of nation states. "The strongest one" does not completely overrun all others. Also look at animals. While many of them tend to "elect" a leader, each animal enjoy quite a bit of autonomy, and in some species, like cats, each individual has quite a lot of freedom. While "The strongest" cat tends to end up with a larger territory, it doesn't end up ruling the entire cat universe.
Also, look at Native North American societies prior to colonization, and tribal societies pretty much anywhere. Conflict is simply too expensive, even for "the strongest", to be worth the bother most of the time. Even in Somalia, perhaps the most "anarchistic" of modern day nations, there are no single dominant militia, and barring international intervention, likely won't be one.
Not saying I believe some Libertarians' obsession with anarchy is particularly helpful to their chances of ever gaining electoral relevance, but claiming anarchy inevitably leads to a "strongest" takes all leftist scare scenario is not supported by evidence.
Competition is the answer to government
I think many of us are in basic agreement on most issues, many have voiced opinions that the Government, a collective group of elite rulers, should not be trusted to run every affair of our daily lives.
I would argue that we should not have a collective group of elite rulers, I think it's ok to have leaders, it is a natural consequence of life, if we could take the legislative power away from them, they can lead all they want, but it would take voluntary compliance for them to have an effect, rather than force.
I don't think it is possible to maintain a constitutional republic with out a strong, fiercely independently minded actively engaged public. But if we had that kind of a populous, why would we need people to govern us.
Government is for the lazy, it allows us not to have to pay attention to the problems that arise from interaction, what is the result of apathy? Dictatorship, Tyranny and Fascism.
I believe every problem that Congress tries to address today could be much better served with technology, do we really need a DMV? We could replace the registration service with a pretty simple web site. Do we really need a Department of Education? We could provide a much better service with a decentralized open source education development project.
Competition is the answer to government, let's allow for the elimination of the monopoly of government services. Ron Paul has argued that most Federal Departments, Agencies and Bureaus should be eliminated, because the services they provide are a disservice to the public.
REP Freedom Force
http://www.youtube.com/user/repfreedomforce
REP Freedom Force
http://www.youtube.com/user/repfreedomforce
Or Decentralization
It's not just those two choses. We can have decentralization first. Destroy the U.S. government so we have competing State governments.
Introduce competition!
I know what I want
a Constitutional Republic. Your post is spot on. A person who starts out by following a healthy diet, but little by little begins consuming junk food until at the end they eat nothing but posions and empty calories did not get where they are by eating a healthy diet but by departing from it.
How about a declairation of rights, without...
perfect masters that believe they need to tell the rest of us how we must live our lives?
Remove the legislators, and we won't have tyranny, what do legislators do, nothing good, they are not problem solvers, the only people that come up with solutions to problems is the innovators in the free market.
I strongly encourage everyone to read "What has government done to our money" by Murray Rothbard, he was of the austrian schoool of economics and a self proclaimed Anarcho-capitalist who predicted the very financial situation we are in many years ago. It seems that most people from the keynesian school of economics believe in central planning, by definition, and most from the austrian school of economics believe in freedom in the free market, capitalism, by definition.
Free market capitalism, is anarchy with arbitration:
A free market is a theoretical term that economists use to describe a market which is free from government intervention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
It's a path of logic that I followed from being a general believer in freedom, to my current leaning towards anarcho-capitolism, because there are no perfect masters that should be making laws to run my life.
REP Freedom Force
http://www.youtube.com/user/repfreedomforce
REP Freedom Force
http://www.youtube.com/user/repfreedomforce
Can't we all just get along???
Obviously, our beloved anarchists such as Paul4won and none do not fit the textbook definition of anarchists. We also know that P4w is presently involved in politcs and has recruited many new Paulites into the movement. So, obviously she does not believe in absolute individualism or total lawlessness. However, a sane, sarcasmless, somewhat friendly conversation would be rather nice on occasion and might teach the rest of us "unenlightened" ones a thing or two...
oops... sorry about the sarcasm...
"Unite Or Die"..
Big hugs!
That was so sweet!
There is an aspect of this I don't usually openly discuss... but here goes. Excuse the oversimplification, please.
Imagine the political world is a 10 point number line. We are at "Number 3." If you want the nation to come to number 6, the fastest way to get there is to go out to number 10 and start hopping up and down.
Capiche?
Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.
I love that analogy
And could not agree more!
figured as much...
how disingenuous of you ;)
"Unite Or Die"..
I know exactly what I want
I want the families that own all the central banks in the world exposed.
I want their design of endlessly distracting us from the importance of the above to also be exposed.
These people need to be discussed until they are out of power.
I would assume that after they fall, there will be a just system as the current one is UNJUST and must end before anything else matters.
Unify
Hear, hear!
ARREST THE ROTHSCHILDS.
Everything else is pretty much hacking at the branches.
Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.
the hacking at branches was I was looking for
kind of a landscape thing...the sh%$ just keeps growing back again!
Unify
Ditto
have you noticed all the "corporate fascist" movies that are out now? I just rented "International' pretty realistic...
"Unite Or Die"..
Anarchy v. Anarchy
I keep hearing you nice anarchist doing commercials here. But the bad anarchist are not doing their commercials too. I mean, they call for anarchy also, but, with some, their openly-claimed objective is to induce “The destruction of civilization.”
So, if that is they’re end goal, and the method to achieve that end is anarchy how would it not be extremely dangerous to induce the state of anarchy without these idiots hijacking your movement and causing it to go their way?
Some of this information can be found at:
The Coalition Against Civilization’s website, Species Traitor, Green Anarchy, Green Seekers, all are self proclaimed anarchy sites.
"bad anarchists" or agent provocateurs?
The anarchists I know personally are all about "Live and let live and leave me alone to live." I know one "anarchist" who is so obviously an agent provocateur that he is laughable. He is completely without support, no one fell for it. Yet he was still successful, as he was loudly proclaiming himself an anarchist, while the rest of us quietly work to restore a Constitution we sort of lost faith in but are doing the best we can...
Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.
Yeah because Websters
Yeah because Websters dictionary is the ultimate authority on anarchy...Sigh! This just gets more comical all the time.
-----
Get Prepared!
Only dead fish go with the flow...
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
I never said they were experts on anarchy.
They are, however, recognized worldwide as the foremost authorities on the English language. Experts in the meaning of words.
How many millions of people think you are the foremost authority on the meaning of words? How many? All one of you?
Comical is a word you probably hear a lot.
They use their reputation to spread falsehoods
Words have etymological roots. Somewhere, even in your "Webster's" that little bit of TRUTH will be there. They FIRST muddy the water with what they want you to believe anarchy means, and most sheeple take definition number one and consider themselves educated. If you want to know what a WORD MEANS, you do not need an expert, you need to know the etymology of the word.
But as usual, people with a pet opinion look for a source that agrees with their opinion, and believe that raises their opinion to the level of "fact." It does not. Two opinions can be just as wrong as one. Or several million. Truth need not be seen by anyone , yet it is still true.
A- or An- means without.
archy means ruler.
That is a fact.
Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.
Definitions from Websters
So long as you recognize Websters dictionary as "the foremost authorities on the English language. Experts in the meaning of words." I'm sure you won't disagree with this, from Websters of course...
Citizen: a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it
And, as I've pointed out in other threads, the government (federal and state) maintains it has no legal obligation to protect the people whom they claim dominion over. But don't take my word for it. Go ahead and search these terms 'police have no constitutional duty to protect individuals' in your search engine of choice. Look up the numerous cases such as Castle Rock v. Gonzales, Warren v. District of Columbia, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, and so on and so on and so on...
What does it all mean? If the government has no legal obligation to protect you, you must not be a citizen. According to Websters anyway
hmmm...
I wonder if Daniel himself wrote that one?
"Unite Or Die"..
I would say Anarchy is a
I would say
Anarchy is a temporary state. It has never existed nor could it over a prolonged period of time --- You either rule a group of people or become ruled by a group of people.
Our Constitutional Republic offers a framework that allows every generation to live how they want. -- Unfortunately this framework has been used to also enslave each other to one another. It could not be more clear, our Republic requires active participation as we are ruled by laws and not men, laws coming from the will of the people. If we do not participate for less forced collectivism of government then those who believe in this enslavement to one another will continue to hand us more compulsion to live with in our lives.
The Political Spectrum Explained
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-4kCD4nbrw
Patriot4Liberty1776
Anatomy of the State, anyone??
Has anyone on here read Rothbard's, Anatomy of the State????
Anyone heard of the Amish or the Quaker?? German Baptist or Brethren???
The communities operate under absolute self rule and have no allegiance to the Constitution. Does this make them radical left wing communists???
Those are homogenous communities linked by a single faith and.
history.
They are also bound by their own laws and have elders which act as a government. The Amish, Quakers, etc. are constrained by the laws of the group/religion and can be punished for violating those laws (shunning, excommunication, removal from the group, etc.).
They do not exist in a state of anarchy.
Anarchy is not...
the absence of law and order, it is the absence of force, you have listed no example of force other than the breaking and ending of a contract to co-habitate, excommunication, that would be the perfect example of a stateless development of spontaneous order.
Law and order is a natural development of people that are wanting to get along with their neighbor, state enforcement of law, is typically a revenue generation device by the rulers, sin tax.
REP Freedom Force
http://www.youtube.com/user/repfreedomforce
REP Freedom Force
http://www.youtube.com/user/repfreedomforce
Nor do they exist without government.
They are enclaves within nations.
In order to have a true anarchist society, there will have to be a new society with no existing government or neighbors.
I would like to hear something constructive from the anarcho-caps, instead of endless repetitions of "Life is unfair!" and "Government sucks." Yes, of course it does...and your solution to this is...?
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
My 'solution' is...
...to stop advocating for using force against everyone!
When you won't even admit that the any government regardless of it's composition uses force against everyone in order to remain government it's kind of hard to help you to move forward.
And why do you think that you wouldn't want neighbors? Anarchy relies on personal relationships.
Yes, they have agreed to live by a set of rules, or laws, of....
.....their own making. This is not the same as anarchy. No one here, that I know of, have suggested the Amish or Quakers et al., may be communists.
At least no one except you.
Having known Amish and Quakers, many live within our society, and are very good citizens. As are the ones who keep to their own society.
We already know for a fact that the Constitutional Republic
is a FAILURE.
But for those of you who feel the need for some formal order, I would be happy to have a Constitutional Republic that is so small as to be indistinguishable from anarchy.
The need for control is a reflection of your own lack of confidence in yourself.
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." Thomas H. Huxley
It was not the
It was not the Constitutional Republic that was a failure, but those who allowed it to fail. Their was a Putsch in 1861 which brought about a consolidation of the Republic of Republics into a centralized-nationalized government, from there the Constitutional Republic was toast.
As Franklin warned: "We have given you a Republic, if you can keep it"
The Founders never had an illusion that the Constitution would or could restrain government. Read their quotes about the subject, like the quote of Adams below, it was left to the People to restrain government, by force if necessary. The Constitution was simply the framework provided to assist the People in that endeavor. You blame the Constitution, I place blame where it belongs.....on the People of subsequent generations who lost both the sight over their own government and the desire to educate themselves in such matters.
There are attempts to either place blame on the Constitution or the Constitutional Republic it founded, the fault is within ourselves as a People, not the document or the form of government that was created to assist us to protect ourselves. .
"A constitution founded on these principles introduces knowledge among the people, and inspires them with a conscious dignity becoming freemen; a general emulation takes place, which causes good humor, sociability, good manners, and good morals to be general. That elevation of sentiment inspired by such a government, makes the common people brave and enterprising. That ambition which is inspired by it makes them sober, industrious, and frugal." Adams
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge; I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers." Adams
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories." Jefferson
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." Jefferson
"On every unauthoritative exercise of power by the legislature must the people rise in rebellion or their silence be construed into a surrender of that power to them? If so, how many rebellions should we have had already?" Jefferson
"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." Madison
"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." Madison
"No compact among men... can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other." Washington
http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com
“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
What do you mean "We" white man?
You do not have the right to speak for me.
You are behaving in a dictatorial manner, speaking for others without their consent. Which is very common in a state called anarchy. Thanks for proving my point.